Managing Conflict Across Cultures: Reading Summary and Key Concepts

Overview

The reading "Managing Conflict" (Reading 3, Unit 13: Culture, Perspectives: Academic Reading Skills and Practice, OUP; adapted from Adler et al., Interplay, 3rd Canadian edition, 2012) argues that although people from most cultures prefer mutually beneficial resolutions to disagreements (Cai and Fink, 2002), the ways they communicate during conflict vary from culture to culture. It then shows that culture is only one of several factors: biology, self-concept, upbringing, status and the "culture" of each relationship also shape conflict style.

1. Direct and Indirect Approaches (Paragraphs 1–3)

North American directness

The direct approach that characterizes many North Americans is not the norm elsewhere. Assertiveness that seems perfectly reasonable to a Canadian would be rude and insensitive in many Asian countries (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988; Samovar et al., 2010).

Face and indirectness in Japan and China

Cultures like Japan and China value self-restraint, avoid confrontation, and place a premium on preserving and honouring the "face" of the other person. What seems like "beating around the bush" to a Canadian would be polite to an Asian. In Japan, "Close the door" would be too straightforward; "It is somewhat cold today" is more appropriate (Okabe, 1987). Japanese are reluctant to say no: "Let me think about it for a while" is recognized as a refusal.

2. Wa (Harmony) and Self-Criticism (Paragraph 4)

The concept of wa

Japanese self-restraint is reflected in wa, or harmony. Interpersonal harmony includes a tendency for individuals to be self-critical rather than to find fault in others.

The self-enhancement study (Heine et al., 2000)

A cross-cultural study compared Canadian and Japanese university students' willingness to accept information that they had performed better or worse than their peers. Canadians found it difficult to believe they were outperformed by the average classmate but easily accepted that they were superior. Japanese students were reluctant to believe they had outperformed the average student. North Americans tend to look for what is good about themselves (self-enhancement, typical of individualistic cultures); Japanese tend to search for weaknesses in order to correct them, which enhances the collectivistic value of harmony.

Two harmony motives (Lim, 2009)

When the motive is to enhance harmony and actively promote group cohesiveness, a more assertive problem-solving approach is preferred. When the motive is to avoid the disintegration of group harmony, avoidance or non-assertion is preferred.

3. China, First Nations and Changing Preferences (Paragraphs 5–6)

A Chinese proverb states, "The first person to raise his voice loses the argument." Among Chinese college students (People's Republic and Taiwan), the three most common persuasion methods are hinting, setting an example by one's own actions, and strategically agreeing to whatever pleases others (Ma and Chuang, 2001). With globalization, preferences may be changing: Zhang and colleagues (2005) found older Chinese adults preferred an accommodating style, while younger adults viewed a problem-solving style just as positively.

Many First Nations people in North America approach conflict very differently from individualistic Westerners. Aboriginal parents often avoid direct criticism or reprimands; storytelling is the primary means of teaching proper behaviour (Keeshig-Tobias, 1990), and parents model expected behaviours. Good relationships are a fundamental value, and personal criticism is seen as damaging (LaLonde, 1992).

4. Cultures That Enjoy Argument (Paragraphs 7–8)

Some cultures see verbal disputes as a form of intimacy and even a game. Canadians in Greece often think they are witnessing an argument when overhearing a friendly conversation (Tannen, 1990). French and Arab men (but not women) find argument stimulating (Copeland and Griggs, 1985). Italian nursery school children enjoy heated debating called discussione, which North Americans would regard as arguing, and working-class Jewish speakers of Eastern European origin use arguments as a means of being sociable.

People from Italy, Greece and parts of Eastern Europe may accept conflict more readily because of their individualistic, low-context style of speaking directly and avoiding uncertainty. In low-context communication, speakers are explicit and direct; in high-context communication, much is left unsaid and must be picked up from context. Cultures emphasizing harmony in close relationships tend to handle conflict less directly, so partners from different backgrounds may struggle to find a comfortable shared style.

5. Beyond Culture: Other Influences (Paragraphs 9–11)

Biology and self-concept

Conflict approach may be part of our biological makeup (Beatty and McCroskey, 1997). A person's self-concept is more powerful than culture in determining conflict style (Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey et al., 2001): independent people tend to use a direct, solution-oriented style; interdependent people avoid direct confrontation; people who are both have the widest variety of conflict behaviours.

Upbringing

Parents who use spanking and other corporal punishment are more likely to have children who approve of aggressive problem solving, such as hitting (Simons and Wurtele, 2010). There is a significant relationship between a mother's conflict style and that of her adult children (Martin et al., 1997).

Status

At least in individualistic cultures, status strongly affects conflict style (Kim et al., 2007). Individualistic students would be more argumentative with a classmate and more apprehensive about conflict with a professor. Collectivistic students were not more argumentative with a peer or more avoidant with a professor, but they too felt more apprehension about conflict with a professor.

Relational culture

The "culture" of each relationship shapes behaviour (Messman and Canary, 1998): someone may be calm at work, where rationality and civility are the norm, but "shriek like a banshee" (scream or cry wildly) at home.

Key Takeaways

• Most cultures prefer mutually beneficial outcomes, but conflict communication differs.
• Collectivistic cultures that value harmony, such as Japan and China, favour indirectness, face-saving and harmony (wa); individualistic, low-context cultures favour directness and self-enhancement. The reading itself does not call Japan or China "high-context"; that label is only an inference from footnote 1, which says that in high-context communication many things are left unsaid.
• Some cultures treat argument as sociable and enjoyable.
• Self-concept, biology, parental modelling, status and relational norms also shape conflict style; self-concept may outweigh culture.